Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description explains none of this for a tool named like a plain listing. It offers no return shape, ordering, pagination, or authorization context, so an agent gets no behavioral signal beyond the structured hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the resource statement is front-loaded ahead of the cross-tool pointer. It is lean without being truncated, though the first fragment is under-specified rather than maximally efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what is returned (court names, ids, possibly venue metadata); it only implies ids exist. Nothing about the surprising destructive/non-read-only annotation is addressed, leaving a real gap for a two-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so tournament_id and session_token (with its create_tournament provenance) are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource ("the courts a tournament is played on") but never supplies a verb, so it does not actually say it lists or returns them. Against siblings like add_court and update_fixture it is distinguishable as the read side, but only by inference from the name, not from the text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives one concrete usage hook: the returned ids are what update_fixture's court argument takes, which tells the agent when this lookup is needed. It does not state when to prefer this over list_pools/list_stages or any prerequisite beyond the required tournament_id/session_token shown in the schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.